HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4792 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0512 of 2007, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Block Prmukh and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 with the allegation that she along with others misappropriated the public fund but during investigation without arrest of the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed, though, there is no allegation that applicant did not cooperate with the investigation. 4. He further submits that when charge-sheet against the applicant was filed in the year 2009, then in the year 2010, she filed the Application U/S 482 No.802 of 2010 and vide order dated 18.02.2010, interim protection was granted by this Court to the applicant but on 19.01.2018, the application was disposed of with a direction that applicant may seek discharge and till then, she was duly protected. 5. He further submits that pursuant to order dated 19.01.2018 passed by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Pandey, Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Sanjay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Smt Gyanti Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) this Court, applicant filed discharge application but court concerned on 27.11.2024 dismissed the discharge application. He next submits, thereafter court concerned also dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by applicant. 6. He further submits, as during investigation applicant was not arrested and even after submission of charge-sheet, applicant was duly protected by this Court, therefore, after more than 15 years there is no occasion to sent her behind the bars. 7. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension, if she will appear before the court concerned then she will be sent to jail and applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 8. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. The instant matter has chequered history and it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 and during investigation applicant was not arrested and without her arrest charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant in the year 2009 and, thereafter, when applicant challenged the proceeding before this Court then this Court initially, protected the applicant but subsequently, in the year 2018, her application was disposed of with a direction to file discharge application and when she filed discharge application then in November, 2024, her discharge application was dismissed, therefore, it appears that during investigation applicant was neither arrested nor any coercive action was taken against her and it reflects that even after submission of charge-sheet, she was duly protected by this Court. 12. Further, from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant either did not cooperate with the investigation or she was absconder. NABAIL No. 4792 of 2025 2 13. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out and this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after more than 15 years from the lodgment of FIR, there is no occasion to sent her behind bar. Further, applicant is lady. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 16. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Smt. Gyanti Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. 18. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to NABAIL No. 4792 of 2025 3 the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 13, 2025 S.A. NABAIL No. 4792 of 2025 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad